COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, by a judgment delivered on 05.11.2024, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, citing CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024. This circular states that if the tax effect is less than the monetary limit imposed, the appeal can be disposed of. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were kept open for adjudication at a later appropriate stage. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the deductibility of provisions for standard assets and the validity of the Section 263 revision order were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the dismissal on the ground of low tax effect.
What were the facts?
The Revenue has filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the deductibility of provisions made for standard assets under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had set aside a revision order passed under Section 263, finding the issue debatable. The Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision to allow deduction for provisions made against standard assets, considering them recoverable. The procedural history indicates that the appeal is being disposed of due to low tax effect as per a CBDT Circular.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in setting aside the revision order under Section 263 on the ground that the issue is debatable, despite standard assets being recoverable? 2. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that provisions created for standard assets are deductible under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the ITAT was right in not appreciating that standard assets are performing and recoverable, not bad debts, thus disallowing provisions for them under Section 36(1)(viia)? 4. Whether the ITAT was right in allowing deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) on provisions for standard assets, based on the expectation of future bad debts? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the provided text. Revenue: Argued that standard assets are recoverable and not bad debts, hence provisions for them should not be deductible under Section 36(1)(viia). The Revenue also contended that the ITAT erred in setting aside the revision order on the ground of debatability. The Revenue relied on CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024 regarding low tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.244 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.11.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.244 of 2024 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .... Appellant Vs. The Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative Bank Limited 104/1, Madurai Road, Post Box No.8 Virudhunagar 626 001. .... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench Chennai, dated 12.05.2023 made in I.T.A.No.539/Chny/2022. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.244 of 2024 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of revision u/s.263 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the issue is debatable even though it is admitted that the standard assets are recoverable in nature. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in holding that provision created for standard assets is liable for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in not appreciating that standard assets are considered as performing and recoverable assets and are not in the nature of bad debts and hence the provision created for standard assets is not allowable as deduction under Section 36(I)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in allowing deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) on the provisions created against the standard assets on the ground that assessee has actually created a valid provision on the expectation that the assets may become bad in future? 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.244 of 2024 2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of time. 3. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 05.11.2024 NCS : Yes/No 2/4 KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.244 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.244 of 2024 05.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026